[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

MCL vs. Allegro?

   Posted-Date: 3 Dec 91 16:20:22 GMT
   Received-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 23:36:23 -0600
   Path: cambridge.apple.com!apple!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!linc.cis.upenn.edu
   From: kaye@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jonathan Kaye)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.mcl
   Date: 3 Dec 91 16:20:22 GMT
   Sender: news@NOC2.DCCS.UPENN.EDU
   Distribution: usa
   Organization: University of Pennsylvania
   Lines: 15
   Nntp-Posting-Host: linc.cis.upenn.edu

   I am interested in porting a large application in Lucid (with minimal
   usage of CLOS) to the Macintosh and wanted to know basically why
   people have gone with MCL over Allegro (or other available Lisps, for
   that matter).

   Thank you for any comments/suggestions,


   Jonathan Kaye, thrill-seeking graduate student
    / /    Rollerblades Rule!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MCL the only CLtL2 lisp with clos
available for the MAC? If you have a MAC and need lisp that conforms
to CLtL2, with CLOS, I'm pretty sure you only HAVE one choice.

I'm awful sure Allegro doesn't have 4.0 for anything other than Sparcs;
while it's a swell lisp, it's useless if you need to support myriad
architectures like we do here.

We haven't gotten any network software for the mac that actually
works, so I can't compare MCL to allegro, or lucid, since we've not
yet been able to port our code that runs on allegro4.1 and lucid4.0 to


"These are only my opinions and are not reflective
of my employer; they do not represent a plug for
a particular hardware or software; infer what you
like, I will deny responsibility.  Though god knows
it'd be nice if they resp[ected my opinions around
here... "


Bill Bohrer

Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation
(MCC ... the "T" didn't conform to the industry-wide
3500 West Balcones Center Drive
Austin,  TX  78759-6509